User talk:A Den Jentyl Ettien Avel Dysklyver/Archive 5

This is an archive of past discussions about User:A Den Jentyl Ettien Avel Dysklyver. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Hello, your signature does not include a link when you sign outside of your talk page, like at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#DYK's should be viewable from Mobiles too, where I encountered this problem. A link to your user or user talk page is required by the signatures guideline. I'm not quite sure how to fix it in your case ... I've never encountered a case quite like yours. Perhaps, for a start, try moving the vertical bar ("|") after "user talk" so it's not breaking the wiki-markup. Graham87 03:30, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Oh, never mind, there's nothing wrong with your signature ... that problem was caused by this edit by DePiep. Happy editing! Graham87 03:39, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

This happened: to {{reply}}, I tried to copy/paste Dysklyver's user name. But it turned out a cut and paste by accident. -DePiep (talk) 09:27, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

It doesn't look like it's working for me.--S Philbrick(Talk) 15:52, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

My signature doesn't work on this page - because it links to this page, not my userpage. It works everywhere else just fine. here is the code : [[User talk:A Den Jentyl Ettien Avel Dysklyver|<span style="color:blue;">''Dysklyver''</span>]] 20:57, 6 October 2017 (UTC). Dysklyver 16:01, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

How did you come to the decision to "keep" when there were two keep votes and two "redirect" votes? Primefac (talk) 16:57, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

I also came here to talk about this closure. I could see the rationale for a no consensus close, but the best action was probably to relist. This subsection and the several subsections above this one, all full of editors lodging well-founded complaints about your AfD listings and closings. It may be a good idea to stick to voting and watching AfD outcomes for a while until you wrap your head around it.

And now specifically about your AfD closes, please (re-)read WP:NAC, particularly the bit that says experienced non-admins in good standing may consider closing a discussion on that page which is beyond doubt a clear keep. Nobody is here specifically to harsh your vibe, but making bad judgement calls just creates work for other volunteers to clean up, ok? A Train^talk 19:12, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Considering that the article had been siginficantly altered since those !votes [1] and diff showing improvements I would consider the quality of my assessment a moot point. I am not a vote counter in a forum where voting is disallowed. You are welcome either of you to renominate it. Dysklyver 23:17, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Dysklyver: Primefac can reopen your close in his capacity as an uninvolved admin, but he is being kind by coming here talking about it with you first. A Train participated, so he can't, but he is an experienced admin when dealing with AfDs, and the fact that he is here is evidence that their opinion of the article hasn't changed despite the improvements. I'm hardly known for being a fan for the use of relists by non-admins when other viable options are available (and I held that view before yesterday), but in circumstances such as these I find it is best to do what I like to call a courtesy relist: simply say yes to a relist without getting into the discussion as to whether you are right or wrong.

It doesn't hurt to help clarify consensus in areas where it may be fuzzy and additional commentary would help to clarify, and it saves a lot of drama. There are obviously exceptions to this practice, but typically non-admins should not be closing AfDs that would be exceptions to this practice unless they are overwhelming keep discussions, which this wasn't. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:44, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

• If anyone re-opens this, put me down for a Keep too. Lead guitarist, for years, in one of the first bands that defined the NWOBHM? That's a shoo-in. Even without then being in a band named after him. Andy Dingley (talk) 01:54, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
• I have overturned the close and relisted it. Primefac (talk) 15:16, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Could you please study WP:BEFORE, and make a bit of an effort before nominating yet more articles, as with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vichy Pastilles. Editors' time is a limited resource, and can be better spent on other things such as creating content! Edwardx (talk) 11:52, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

		Welcome to Women in Red's November 2017 worldwide online editathons. New: The Women in Red World Contest Continuing: #1day1woman Global Initiative
		(To subscribe: Women in Red/English language mailing list and Women in Red/international list. Unsubscribe: Women in Red/Opt-out list)

-Megalibrarygirl (talk) 16:19, 21 October 2017 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Hello A Den Jentyl Ettien Avel Dysklyver, thank you for your efforts reviewing new pages!

Backlog update:

• The new page backlog is currently at 12,878 pages. We have worked hard to decrease from over 22,000, but more hard work is needed! Please consider reviewing even just a few pages a day.
• We have successfully cleared the backlog of pages created by non-confirmed accounts before ACTRIAL. Thank you to everyone who participated in that drive.

Technology update:

• Primefac has created a script that will assist in requesting revision deletion for copyright violations that are often found in new pages. For more information see User:Primefac/revdel.

General project update:

• The Article Wizard has been updated and simplified to match the layout style of the new user landing page. If you have not yet seen it, take a look.
• To keep up with the latest conversation on New Pages Patrol or to ask questions, you can go to Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers and add it to your watchlist.

---

If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, go here. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:47, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Comments like this are not a great look for anybody, but especially not for someone who is raising hackles at AfD as much as you have been recently. Please don't characterise other editors' arguments as "incredibly stupid". A Train^talk 11:20, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

* '''Delete''' I am surprised so much argument has occurred on this article. It seems quite clearly non-notable to me. Incredibly stupid comments about whether news is reliable based on crap like: "''Academia considers newspaper articles less than fifty years old as primary sources''" seems irrelevant, what is relevant is that this is a [[WP:BIO1E]] failure, an argument to which no clear rebuttal has been found. [[User talk:A Den Jentyl Ettien Avel Dysklyver|<span style="color:blue;">''Dysklyver''</span>]] 15:53, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but after several weeks of being called 'idiotic' 'a moron' 'redacted and 'stupid' for even the most minor errors (not issues at AfD this was another issue) I reserve the right to use this language to point out similar problems, unless you can show it isn't allowed, and how I am supposed to deal with it happening to me. I have been repeatedly told to 'copy what experienced Wikipedians do', perhaps if someone could outline what this means?

Don't take it personally, it was a comment on comments made regarding how all news sources in the last 50 years are primary sources. I mean really, how am I supposed to put a fine point on that? I have no problem with criticizing a specific publication, indeed that is to be encouraged. but not that, which was misquoting academia, claiming that academia was a single unit with one opinion, claiming that all news was the same, differentiated only by date, and making rather odd implications to the definition of obscure policies to back it up. Dysklyver 11:43, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Mate, you're a practicing attorney. I am confident that you can find some way to refute an argument without calling it "incredibly stupid".

If it is really necessary for someone to tell you that such language is not allowed, then please read Wikipedia:Civility, which is one of the five pillars of the project. I am not picking on you: this language is not acceptable for anyone on Wikipedia. If you can provide me with some links to where you have been called "idiotic" or "a moron", I will go correct the editors in question.

You are a smart fellow and an asset to the project, but at the moment you are on your way to a community-imposed topic ban from participating at AfD. A Train^talk 12:08, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

My specialism is small claims in county court and such, I wouldn’t say my vocabulary is different from normal life in my work, if someone drunk drives into a lamppost whilst on the phone I would hardly call them anything else (the short jail term, fine and loss of driving license being the real punishment of course, never drive like this).

It's nothing to worry about to much, but if I was listing issues I would probably complain about:

• the behavior of William M. Connolley on Description of the Medieval Warm Period and Little Ice Age in IPCC reports specifically the removal of the merge tag. However I am in no way wanting to get back involved in that article since it appears to be something to do with global warming. (a drama area)
• The person who called me a moron got blocked (thankfully), although he may have been the person to say other bad things on reddit (I am yet to follow up the trolling on reddit thing, if it reoccurs I might do something about it).
• My involvement in Talk:Vine Colby garnered a good few emails with indescribable content (which was dealt with externally).
• I can't be asked specifically to find the time I got called idiotic, it was a minor issue from a while back that I don't think needs a follow up, since I had broken something in a rather 'idiotic' way, it was probably deserved.
• I do also use IRC, which hosts a wikipedia help channel, on said channel you can say pretty much anything you like, because no one minds, this partly influences me I suppose, since I communicate more on that than I do here.

I have taken your comments on board, I will stick to acceptable comments like 'ridiculous' and 'silly' to show my greatest annoyance from now on. Dysklyver 12:54, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

for future reference: see User talk:DrStrauss#Well wishes. (diff). Dysklyver 13:38, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

This page contains material that is kept because it is considered humorous. Such material is not meant to be taken seriously.

^{[April Fools!]}

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for being awesome Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

Bobherry Talk Edits 20:56, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

With regards to my comments on WT:MILHIST. The ODNB is a good place to start although usually for this period there are free to view and text to copy versions on Wikisource:DNB (see WP:FREECOPYING] and the templates {{DNB}} and {{cite DNB}})

Occasionally there are biographies of this period which are in the ODNB and not in the DNB eg:

• Roberts, Keith (January 2008). "Jubbes, John (fl. 1643–1649)". Oxford Dictionary of National Biography (online ed.). Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/ref:odnb/66324. (Subscription or UK public library membership required.)

but that is the exception rather then the rule.

Over the years I have accumulated links to quit a few Copyright expired texts on the English Civil War see user:PBS/Library#English Civil War which you may find useful.

-- PBS (talk) 15:22, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Hello. Four days ago we corresponded on the Tony Brun page being declined ... You suggested that I list articles that feature or mention Tony and his basketball career. Here is a partial list. I am working on more.

2/4/79 - Mater Christi Stops Mount Vernon - Newsday, by Larry Carmody

3/3/79 — Mater Christi missed its Manpower - Newsday, by Larry Carmody

3/22/79 - Mater Christi High: A producer of stars - New York Times - Special to New York Times

1/25/80 - Orangemen Blend a winner - New York Times, By Jim Naughton

3/8/81 — Syracuse beats Villanova in Three Overtimes for Crown — New York Times, By Gordon S. White Jr.

12/8/81 — Red Bruin finding his place - The Ogsdenburg Journal, by AP

1/18/82 — Syracuse breaks Georgetown’s streak — New York Times, AP

1/18/82 — Bruin gets Orangeman out of Jam with Hoyas - Newsday, Combined News Services

2/14/82 - Bruin scores 26 for Syracuse in 78-71 triumph over UConn - New York Times, AP reporter

3/25/81 - Syracuse is soothed by Success in NIT — New York Times, By Gerald Eskenazi

4/1/83 — Big East Seniors play in All Star Game — New York Times, UPI

10/31/85 - Bruin surrenders - New York Times, AP reporter

7/11/86 — Lesson against Drugs - New York Times - Sports People Column

8/3/95 —SU Star rebounds by helping kids learn the game - The Altamont Enterprise, by Bob Jones

8/9/87 — This can happen to anyone, Tony Bruin Rebounds from his Rise and Fall - Newsday, John Valenti

I am going to contribute more sources as I begin to search the New York Daily News and NY Post. Thank you for taking the time to talk about this. Jrowanpr (talk) 00:37, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

Happy Halloween!

---

Hello A Den Jentyl Ettien Avel Dysklyver:
Thanks for all of your contributions to improve Wikipedia, and have a happy and enjoyable Halloween!
    – Bobherry Talk Edits 16:27, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

Send Halloween cheer by adding {{subst:Happy Halloween}} to user talk pages with a friendly message.

Happy Halloween!

---

Hello A Den Jentyl Ettien Avel Dysklyver:
Thanks for all of your contributions to improve Wikipedia, and have a happy and enjoyable Halloween!
    – North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:34, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

Send Halloween cheer by adding {{subst:Happy Halloween}} to user talk pages with a friendly message.

On 27 October 2017, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Jeremy (snail), which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that a global search yielded two mating partners for Jeremy, a rare left-coiled snail, but they began to mate with each other instead? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Jeremy (snail). You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Jeremy (snail)), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Alex Shih (talk) 00:03, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

Hello. You have a new message at Kudpung's talk page. 01:58, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

exp. Sunday, October 28, 2018

Hey, I was looking through my recent contributions to the user talk namespace while trying to track down a block I'd done, and I couldn't find my recent talk page message to you in the archives. It turns out that ClueBot III archived that thread to the wrong place because you'd forgotten to change the archive prefix in your archiving template after you'd changed your username. I've moved archive 3 to the right place and fixed the template. Hope you don't mind. Graham87 12:52, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

@Graham87: - Hey thanks, I couldn't figure out why my archives were all stuffed up, I seemed to have a duplicate archive 2. Will I need to change the prefix thingy each time it start a new archive or will this work properly now? Dysklyver 13:16, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

No worries ... ah, so you did have a duplicate archive 2! You also had a duplicate archive 1 as well. I've moved them both to archive 3 and 4, respectively, and moved your old archive 3 to archive 5. Everything should be OK on the archiving front now; you shouldn't need to change anything from now on. Graham87 13:27, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. Dysklyver 13:42, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

Hello A Den Jentyl Ettien Avel Dysklyver. Your account has been added to the "New page reviewers" user group, allowing you to review new pages and mark them as patrolled, tag them for maintenance issues, or in some cases, tag them for deletion. The list of articles awaiting review is located at the New Pages Feed. New page reviewing is a vital function for policing the quality of the encylopedia, if you have not already done so, you must read the new tutorial at New Pages Review, the linked guides and essays, and fully understand the various deletion criteria. If you need more help or wish to discuss the process, please join or start a thread at page reviewer talk.

• URGENT: Please consider helping get the huge backlog down to a manageable number of pages as soon as possible.
• Be nice to new users - they are often not aware of doing anything wrong.
• You will frequently be asked by users to explain why their page is being deleted - be formal and polite in your approach to them too, even if they are not.
• Don't review a page if you are not sure what to do. Just leave it for another reviewer.
• Remember that quality is quintessential to good patrolling. Take your time to patrol each article, there is no rush. Use the message feature and offer basic advice.

The reviewer right does not change your status or how you can edit articles. If you no longer want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. In case of abuse or persistent inaccuracy of reviewing, the right can be revoked at any time by an administrator. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 21:45, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Cornish alphabet. Since you had some involvement with the Cornish alphabet redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 00:19, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for taking your time to review the article about Richard III. Isananni (talk) 15:04, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

No worries, I have started the review at Talk:Richard III of England/GA2, an intial look is promising. Dysklyver 15:15, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Re: Draft:Liam Goligher.

I was told not to include citations to other Wikipedia articles. What is the difference between a citation and the link established when a word of phrase turns blue as the cursor moves over it. Those are perfectly adequate for my purposes. How do I make those links work? M-Lee-T (talk) 01:16, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

One of the citations given may not be the NY Times but is the equivalent of the New York Times and Newsweek combined among huge swaths of Christians in North America. It is called "Christianity Today". It is available in both a print and online editions. Dr. Goligher has no connections with it. Surely that is an acceptable source for anyone in Christian ministry, isn't it? Dr. Goligher was written up there because he kicked off the biggest debate in the churches in at least 60 years. Here's that link. Which in turn links all over the Christian world and not just in North America. Unless Wikipedia wants to rule out any personalities of importance from the Christian religious world, you need to get acquainted with that magazine/news outlet. They reach hundreds of millions of readers. It has been around for a very long time.

http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2016/june-web-only/gender-trinity-proxy-war-civil-war-eternal-subordination.html year.

The other reliable Christian news source is the Aquila Report, again, no connection to Dr. Goligher, but smaller. There news is good, their editorials may be too slanted.

http://theaquilareport.com/breaking-news-dr-liam-goligher-minister-at-duke-street-church-in-the-richmond-area-of-london-called-to-be-senior-minister-at-tenth-presbyterian-pca-in-philadelphia/

Both of these are in the article. I understand your comments on new style standards and will correct them. M-Lee-T (talk) 01:16, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

• @M-Lee-T: - Ok, "link established when a word of phrase turns blue as the cursor moves over it" is a Wikilink, you put double square brackets round a word or phrase which is also the title of a wikipedia article: [[Jesus Christ]] or you put the title of the wikipedia article title first, a | symbol, then what you want it to say: [[Jesus Christ|our lord and saviour]]. You can link to a website in a similar way, but if you do this in the article text it will probably be rejected as this is not the correct style.

A citation however is an 'invisible' reference which creates a little blue number, so <ref>{{Cite news|url=http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2016/june-web-only/gender-trinity-proxy-war-civil-war-eternal-subordination.html|title=Gender and the Trinity: From Proxy War to Civil War|work=ChristianityToday.com|access-date=2017-10-31|language=en}}</ref> - and - <ref>{{Cite news|url=http://theaquilareport.com/breaking-news-dr-liam-goligher-minister-at-duke-street-church-in-the-richmond-area-of-london-called-to-be-senior-minister-at-tenth-presbyterian-pca-in-philadelphia/|title=Tenth Presbyterian (PCA), Philadelphia expected to call Dr. Liam Goligher, Minister at Duke Street Church, London, to be Senior Minister - The Aquila Report|date=2011-01-02|work=The Aquila Report|access-date=2017-10-31|language=en-US}}</ref> are the correct citations for the two links you supplied.

There should be a citation like this linking to a source which supports the information in every sentence. Citations are used only to verify what you have written. You should not use this kind of citation to link to a wikipedia article, but wikilinks to wikipedia articles are encouraged (but will not count as sources for verification). Dysklyver 10:20, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Thank you so much. I can remove a lot of citation with the links. I'll check the other citations out. I work mostly in visual mode, but know how to modify the raw text. You say every sentence. What is expected for such things as date of birth? I took what I have off his job application, which is online. M-Lee-T (talk) 17:00, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

• Unless his date of birth is well known and published in a news report or similar publication, it is best not to include it for privacy reasons. Dysklyver 20:12, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for creating the article John Collins (Bengal Army officer). Please have a look at the changes I made to the article just now. They fall into three:

1. Some people add endnotes when creating an article. I do, but others do not. If you do, then please make it clear where you got them from (as I have done) basically it follows the idea of WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT (as I doubt either of us will ever read the East India Military Calendar!)
2. Add a "Biography" section header. It can also be called "Life". If the biography contains a family paragraph (usually placed at the end of a DNB article) then a second section called "Family" is usually added.
3. Last, but not least, please include inline citations (see WP:CITE). Either the way I have done it, or as some others do, by including the long citation ref tag pair like this:

<ref name="DNB p. 371">{{DNB|inline=1 |wstitle=Collins....}} </ref>

If you use this method rather than {{sfn}} then please include the parameter inline=1. This changes the prescript from

• "This article incorporates text from a publication now in the public domain:"

to

"One or more of the preceding sentences incorporates text from a publication now in the public domain:"

-- PBS (talk) 19:08, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

• Thanks, these formatting tips are very useful, as I have every intention of doing some more similar articles. Particularly the bit about the endnotes. As it happens (because hey its gotta be there somewhere) you can actually read the East India Military Calendar on archive.org, and google books but its not much use in this case because it is either not a complete set or is not properly searchable, or maybe is the wrong year, and I can't find John Collin's entry. Dysklyver 20:07, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Hi. You recently added (and then updated) a merge template to North Main Street (Cork). The merge template includes a link to Talk:Cork (city). But there is no merge discussion on this talk page. Per WP:MERGEPROP, one of the first steps (typically the first step) in proposing a merge is to open a discussion thread. Often explaining the rationale for the proposal. Is this just an error of omission? Or are you waiting for other interested editors to open the discussion thread? (This may be difficult for others to do on your behalf. As it's not clear (to me at any rate) what the rationale for the merge might be?). Guliolopez (talk) 17:40, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

• I was infact (after tagging it to wrongly merge to the redirect Cork city!) tagging with reference to the existing comments at Talk:North Main Street (Cork)#Notability, and at Talk:Cork_(city)#North_Main_Street but I will make a new note about it at Talk:Cork_(city) to clarify the situation. Dysklyver 19:27, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2017_November_1#Wikipedia:WikiProject/Vietnam Province and City

News and updates for administrators from the past month (October 2017).

Administrator changes

Longhair • Megalibrarygirl • TonyBallioni • Vanamonde93

Allen3 • Eluchil404 • Arthur Rubin • Bencherlite

Technical news

• The Wikimedia Foundation's Anti-Harassment Tools team is creating an "Interaction Timeline" tool that intends to assist administrators in resolving user conduct disputes. Feedback on the concept may be posted on the talk page.
• A new function is now available to edit filter managers that will make it easier to look for multiple strings containing spoofed text.

Arbitration

• Eligible editors will be invited to submit candidate statements for the 2017 Arbitration Committee Elections starting on November 12 until November 21. Voting will begin on November 27 and last until December 10.
• Following a request for comment, Ritchie333, Yunshui and Ymblanter will serve as the Electoral Commission for the 2017 ArbCom Elections.

Obituaries

• The Wikipedia community has recently learned that Allen3 (William Allen Peckham) passed away on December 30, 2016, the same day as JohnCD. Allen began editing in 2005 and became an administrator that same year.

Hello A Den Jentyl Ettien Avel Dysklyver, and thanks for patrolling new pages! I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of User:ExpoIndiaMart/sandbox, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: User was not banned or blocked when the article was created. You may wish to review the Criteria for Speedy Deletion before tagging further pages. Thank you. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:56, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

ok thanks, it was not clear to me the exact G5 procedure, but your comments here and on IRC have helped clear it up. Dysklyver 00:03, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Liam Goligher. Thanks! Theroadislong (talk) 13:36, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

Help! I have a couple problems here. And the only solution I can see is to pile minutia on minutia.

If I can't get info out there like a Wiki article, a prominent man goes virtually unknown. (I am trying other things, too.) YOU AREN'T ASKED TO CONTRIBUTE CHAPTERS TO A BOOK ALONGSIDE SOMEONE WHOM 'TIME' MAGAZINE WROTE UP AS ONE OF THE MOST INFLUENTIAL PEOPLE IN THE WORLD IF YOU ARE A NOBODY. (John Stott - I checked your link to Time in the Wiki article on him.) As I once said to you, he called John Stott, "Uncle John." I can name other prominent Christian leaders he knows very well indeed.

One thing is that most major newspapers have dropped a RELIGION section over the last 20-30 years. Religion is mentioned only when radicals kill other people.

1. the roles of prior board members are never published that I can find.

2. conferences usually retain the lists of speakers for only the most recent few years. The best source for the most important conference Keswick is on Wikipedia, which has a chart of the speakers going many years back. You say I can't use that as a citation.

3. Dr. G. refuses to allow 'meaty' bios anywhere at all. I know. He has taken a couple I have written and cut them to five lines, two lines devoted to family! He sees it as a calling to Christian humility. Now it is fighting against him. (I do volunteer work for an organization which sometimes schedules him to speak. Part of my job is to get the bio approved. A nightmare.)

I still have pages and pages of links to check out and judge their merit. But it seems more of the same.

Britain is small enough that he is known by word of mouth. Now in the United States, he is an unknown entity.

The best information comes from interviews with himself. Interviewers can get him to open up. But you have ruled those out.

I did come across one half-way decent one, but it still is minimalist. So I have resorted to showing he has some sort of connection to an organization by going to sites where he is seen on a platform at a meeting. I realize these are weak. This becomes a vicious circles and a self-fulfilling prophecy.

I Googled one of his much-less-important predecessors and got 35,000 hits. Google him and you are lucky to get 4000.

I don't know how to deal with this any better than I am doing. M-Lee-T (talk) 15:45, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

One suggestion would be to stop piling "minutia on minutia" the article could be a fraction of the size, one paragraph with 4 strong reliable sources would stand more chance of being accepted and please get rid of all the references that don't mention him it isn't helping. Theroadislong (talk) 18:04, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Ping:@M-Lee-T: - A suggestion would be to create the article as a stub. In this example we have already established he is likely to meet the so-called notability guideline, under a subject specific guideline. That is by far the most difficult step.

The problem is that none of the sources verify what all of what is written. And even all the sources combined, still don't. Which means that although the article is good, it fails the WP:Verifiability guideline. The possible solutions are to find more sources, or include less information. By my estimate we could have maybe three paragraphs and his list of works, a short bit about his Keswick work, it would be a stub, but it would be something. As Goligher is featured in more news/biographies later on, the article could be expanded. you could keep what is written already in your userspace for reference.

A significant problem you are pointing out here is interviews, these are considered primary sources (imagine a devious person lied in an interview, and it was published, how could we allow that to be a source?), so to deal with this, the policy is that all interviews are generally disallowed, without anyone making judgment on any given example to prevent people gaming the system.

Your initial point (the one in caps) is valid, but it doesn't deal with the issue, which is the objective verification of information. Dysklyver 19:50, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Okay, I will follow through on your suggestions. What we are up against is a man who seriously practices Christian humility to a fault, which includes keeping his name off things. I will zero in on the few things which can be verified. He is pastor of Tenth Church (almost all the former pastors have a page and he is the best of the bunch in 100 years.) Came from Duke Street in London. Can be verified. Keswick work, although the documentation there is weak. However their Yearbooks listed in Publications are good verification of his speaking. I will mention the Trinitarian Debate in passing with two solid sources, one the Christianity Today and one where he is referenced extensively in a book. And let it go at that.

As for Christian humility, I have actually had to call or email people to verify much of this. It is incredible. He has admitted to me that me has done this deliberately. And when I write short bios for conferences, he scratches half of it. I work for the Alliance. It is the polar opposite of self-promotion or gaming the system.

Sounds like I need to take all that I have and write a book myself!!!!

Do I have to do anything to change it to a 'stub'? Does a stub come up when people do a search? I do so much appreciate your help. Let me take a day off and get back to you. Thanks so much. M-Lee-T (talk) 18:49, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

@M-Lee-T: - I have converted the article into a stub, I would recommend not making any substantial alteration to the text (unless you wrote that book in record time), but you can add whatever notes you want inside ref tags. (it will appear in the ref list). You will notice that there is no longer a section about his speaking, his board roles, or his chapters, this is because they are not strictly relevant and could not be supported with enough prose text, all the main facts are still there in a summarized format in the lead. Effectively minor details like which exact conferences he was leading and when are not strictly relevant to a short article. Perhaps if more detail was available they could be included but we should try and avoid the article being several sections of lists. I am pretty certain I made his main role (minister of the tenth) obvious enough, it has been mentioned four times, and the trinity debate mention is in the lead. Once finished the article will link to Worldcat and other library systems via authority control, so people will be able to see the books and articles he contributed to without us having to list every one of the 17 chapters he contributed. Dysklyver 22:34, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Thank you so very much for this and all your help. I will have to take a look at it. I assume it is in the draft page? Thanks Again. Let's get something out there. M-Lee-T (talk) 00:41, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

Okay, I looked at it. Made a few wordsmith changes (capitalized Christian and dealt with one incomplete sentence. Smoothed out the list of the books of the Bible he had preached on. Could we add just 2-3 of the books to which he contributed without causing a furor? Just asking. If we have to go with what we have, fine. As for access, I meant can one do a search of Wikipedia a have the stub come up. I don't remember seeing stubs. Hope to be out of your hair soon (an Americanism!) M-Lee-T (talk) 01:03, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

@M-Lee-T: - To clarify, a stub is just a word used for a short article, stubs appear just like any other article, but they are also included in list of stubs, like Category:American novelist, 19th-century birth stubs. The minor changes seem fine, I also think listing some of the more important chapters he contributed is probably ok. It is a requirement to put inline references in though, each reference must mention him and something he has done, and preferably be published by a unconnected organization. The idea is to have references for each thing that he has done, I will have a look through what is in the source list myself at some point soon, and see what is available. (if you do some of this yourself, then remember to put the references after the full stop of the sentence which matches the source. Although you can put it after a comma, this breaks up the text and makes it harder the read). Dysklyver 08:59, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks about the chapters since his most meaningful writing is in those. I will take a shot at it, since some of the important sources are at my fingertips. This is exhausting me. Not the writing so much as the religious in-fighting behind the Debate over who God is. One good sources has expunged everything about him from their site. M-Lee-T (talk) 17:31, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

I highly recommend using https://archive.org/web/ on sources you think might be removed, archive.org (wayback machine) will keep a reliable copy forever and you can still use it, I have run the IAbot on the draft to archive all the sources added so far. Dysklyver 19:45, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Liam Goligher. Thanks! Theroadislong (talk) 10:08, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Hi, Why on Earth did you propose an article about an ordinary election deleted using WP:Chrystal ball? The Icelandic municipal elections will happen on 26 May 2018 because its 4 years since the last elections (31/5 2014). There is nothing uncertain or speculative about that.--Batmacumba (talk) 13:31, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

It is very simple. You wrote Icelandic municipal elections, 2018. It is an article with a single sentence which says: @Municipal elections will take place in Iceland on 26 May 2018. The 74 municipal councils in the country will be elected using open list PR.", it has a single source, which is a unreliable wordpress blog.

From WP:CRYSTAL, "Individual scheduled or expected future events should be included only if the event is notable and almost certain to take place." I am not sure why you think a set of future local elections is notable, certainly there does not seems to be anything reliable to suggest it is.

Per WP:CRYSTAL section 2, you will note that future events which are certain to happen because they are in a defined sequence are not acceptable.

You are probably thinking it says appropriate topics include the 2020 U.S. presidential election, that's an election!, to which I say that presidential elections are generally notable and local municipal elections are not.

I will not be taking this further, you are free to remove the PROD tag, but note someone else may send it to AfD if it not shown to be a notable event,I would recommend adding some sources which talk about it, even if they are in Icelandic. Dysklyver 13:44, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

We have plenty of articles about local elections from all over the world, they are per definition notable. The Icelandic local elections in 2010 and 2014 have articles, and there are red links about previous local elections (implying they are considered notable by the people working with Iceland). The elections are mandated by law. We have plenty of election articles created on that basis.

The source is fully reliable, its based on public info and is very accurate. I have added a link to the third largest political party.--Batmacumba (talk) 13:52, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

This is unacceptable, you can't just make low quality articles on future events like this, you should at the very least cite the law and/or the parliamentary sessions which mandate the election, and at least one independent source that backs it up (not a party standing in the election, or a government source, neither are independent). In this case you did neither, and you can't rely on inherent notability for an event that has not yet happened. The elections are notable because of people reporting on the outcome, not because they exist.

In this example it is possible to source it, search for something like "sveitarstjórnarkosningar 2018" and use something from the secondary sources: [2], [3], [4], [5], [6]. And search for "Íslensk lög um sveitarstjórnarkosningar" and cite the law defining the date, which is [7] and [8] (full English title: "Act on elections to local authorities, 1998 no. 5 March 6th"), back it up with something like [9] (a non-icelandic source). With the proper sourcing the article is no longer speculative or borderline OR. Dysklyver 14:36, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

He will be happy about his birthday. He jokes about it a lot. But mostly about not revealing it.

I was concerned about the quotes I put in. Unfortunately in one case, Wiki has blocked the whole site "sermonaudio.com" I suspect because it is largely a listening or viewing site and would drain the resources. But that is also where the transcripts are held. I'll see what I can do.

As for the headings, books are far less important in this case than the spoken word. People study his messages as if reading a book, even fairly scholarly ministers. His books are minimalist in depth in comparison. I have read them. Most of them were books where he allowed other people to do the primary writing, except for the Jesus Gospel. The chapters in collected works are better, especially the first two.

As for the titles, you had left all but one of them there, but moved stuff around inside then. It is tough to do if you are not familiar with the categories used in church settings. For example, Preaching means talking to Christians while evangelism mean explaining the Christian faith to people who are not. For a while, he did a lot of that in nearby 'pubs'. Those can't be mixed up.

Teaching is what it sounds like, but for a minister at this level, it is usually applied only to very sophisticated audiences like those one would find in seminaries, or seminary level 'continuing education' for ministers. Maybe I should call it Theological Teaching? So these are three very different venues and audiences.

As for moving the Trinitarian Debate up, as I said, that is why people are most likely to come to this site. So even in an encyclopedia, I would think that is pertinent.

I have been adding notes to the TALK page on the "Trinity" main article. This debate is a modern phenomenon and I have suggested it be moved elsewhere with links, since the changes being made are not settled Christian belief. The tone of the rest of the article is 'here's what the Christian faith has been through the centuries'. Should such an article be created, things might change on the Goligher article. But that seems a long way off. Some of the fringe elements in the Debate are trying to dominate that, right there on the TRINITY page. I am working through this guy Fred Sanders who is a world-renown Trinitarian theologian on that -- a completely different article. I suspect the Roman Catholics had much to do with that page and they have done an excellent job on the core of the article. This is one thing Catholics and Protestants have really agreed on for many centuries! M-Lee-T (talk) 19:03, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

• I think some nuggets of information are filtering into my brain from that... I have looked into sermonaudio.com, and it is currently blacklisted from use on wikipedia. see: here and here. The Trinitarian Debate is not nearly as relevant in an encyclopedia article about a person as it might appear, the standard practice is to add a summary paragraph to the lead section, and put it lower down per Manual of style to avoid something dominating a biography. I don't understand how teaching is separate to his church activities to be honest, isn't it part of his job as senior minister? And, where I live, preaching covers just about anything a man of god says, but particularly what he says to unbelievers, hence the folly of preaching to the converted. I am aware of the US evangelist concept but did not realise there was a difference in terminology. I officially do not get involved in anything popeish, so won't actively get involved in the trinity debate myself. Dysklyver 20:05, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Please help me out. I am getting desperate. I have found a few BETTER articles. They are not perfect by a long shot. I have entered them several times, only to have a conflict with either you or theroadislong that seems to be wiping them out. Can you please give me some time to complete a block of work? I know what you want. The perfect article is not out there, but there are better ones. It is just that I have done the work three times and lost it. Can you hold off for THE REST OF THIS WEEK and let me do my job uninterrupted. I can't keep this up, doing it over and over. PLEASE? M-Lee-T (talk) 14:52, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Yes, no worries, I will let you have some time to work on it. To avoid edit conflicts and session timeouts by the way, it is a good idea to write content in microsoft word or notepad, or copy it to word/notepad - before pressing save. Dysklyver 15:06, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Are you familiar with the page history? Work is not "lost", even when deleted. You can retrieve it by editing the older versions, accessed through the history. Nor is there any reason why you should not simply edit the draft where it sits, as much as you like. You are not required to use some secondary tool like Word, just to make things extra-difficult. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:20, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Liam Goligher. Thanks! Theroadislong (talk) 22:23, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Hi A Den Jentyl Ettien Avel Dysklyver and thank you very much for your help at Copypatrol. However, I noticed that at the article United States Office of Special Counsel you did not notice that the source document, being a publication of the US Government, is in the public domain. Therefore there's no need to remove it; what you need to do in that case is add the template {{PD-notice}} as part of the citation and advise the editor how to do that themselves in the future. There's another problem, too: you did not actually remove the content. While we do appreciate your help, we would also appreciate it very much if you could be more meticulous in the work if you intend to continue helping assess these reports. Thank you. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 13:53, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

In truth I have no idea how Copypatrol works, at all, although I gave it a good go. I ended up not being sure if I had done the right thing or not :( I am not too sure if I will be trying again, but if I do, I will bear what you said in mind. Dysklyver 14:14, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Hello! Your submission of Template:Did you know nominations/Richard III of England at the Did You Know nominations page is not complete; if you would like to continue, please link the nomination to the nominations page as described in step 3 of the nomination procedure. If you do not want to continue with the nomination, tag the nomination page with {{db-g7}}, or ask a DYK admin. Thank you. DYKHousekeepingBot (talk) 20:25, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Hello, can you please add your source(s) to the above article? If you ping me when it's done, then I will review it so it is indexed by Google. Best wishes, Boleyn (talk) 21:01, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

I added some sources and expanded it a bit, but it is still about 900 entries and masses of links short of being finished. Dysklyver 14:27, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

900, wow, but Cornwall is an amazing place. Thanks for adding the sources. Best wishes, Boleyn (talk) 10:08, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

God save our gracious Queen Long live our noble Queen God save the Queen Send her victorious Happy and glorious Long to reign over us God save the Queen O Lord our God arise Scatter her enemies And make them fall Confound their politics Frustrate their knavish tricks On Thee our hopes we fix God save us all Thy choicest gifts in store On her be pleased to pour Long may she reign May she defend our laws And ever give us cause To sing with heart and voice God save the Queen

Not in this land alone But be God's mercies known From shore to shore Lord make the nations see That men should brothers be And form one family The wide world over From every latent foe From the assassins blow God save the Queen O'er her thine arm extend For Britain's sake defend Our mother, prince, and friend God save the Queen Lord grant that Marshal Wade May by thy mighty aid Victory bring May he sedition hush And like a torrent rush Rebellious Scots to crush God save the Queen

I note your edit request is lingering, unserviced, on the queue. I (and I guess everybody else who has passed up the job) spot that you've pinged a specific editor to do the edit and, through not wanting to intrude, and the implication that there may be something special about the change, will leave it for your choice of editor.

Also, you've sandboxed the changes in your own userpages. The {{edit template-protected}} template provides a bunch of tools which make a request easier to service if it's been sandboxed in the template's sandbox.

Hope that helps, Cabayi (talk) 23:29, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

No worries, Nthep has done it several times before, so I pinged him. However there is another designation requested at the historic sites wikiproject now, and I will code that one too before worrying too much about this and add both to the sandbox at once. Dysklyver 23:34, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Hi, are you the same user who has been using the nick Aguyintobooks on IRC, specifically in the #wikimedia-tech channel? Legoktm (talk) 07:10, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Based on [10] I assume so. I'd like to politely ask you to refrain from helping people in that channel - as far as I can tell all of the advice you gave to people in the past 24 hours was entirely wrong. If you have questions or want to learn more I'm happy to answer them or give you some pointers. HTH, Legoktm (talk) 07:17, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Probably best to follow up with the correct helpful fix on simple-talk. Dysklyver 08:47, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

You've managed to miss the point entirely. A senior tech is asking you politely to stop giving out bad advice on IRC. Primefac (talk) 14:06, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

My mistake, I thought the senior tech was offering to help fix the massmessage system on simple-wiki. Dysklyver 14:36, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

I meant what Primefac said. And saying you're not going to "provide specific advice" and then going ahead and trying to give people advice isn't helpful either. I can probably also help with investigating the MassMessage issue, and commented on simple-wiki. Legoktm (talk) 18:45, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Hi A Den Jentyl Ettien Avel Dysklyver, I just wanted to let you know that I have added the "autopatrolled" permission to your account, as you have created numerous, valid articles. This feature will have no effect on your editing, and is simply intended to reduce the workload on new page patrollers. For more information on the autopatrolled right, see Wikipedia:Autopatrolled. Feel free to leave me a message if you have any questions. Happy editing! Schwede66 18:03, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

To comment on my ArbCom candidacy go to its subpage.

This appears to be just a farmstead rather than a hamlet, and the sources cited seem to bear this out. On the Ordnance Survey map the only label is "South Treveneague Farm". I think this fails WP:NGEO, although an article on Treveneague may be possible, given the PastScape entry cited in the Fogou article. Deor (talk) 17:18, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

(Ping @Deor: I checked the older OS maps and although "South Treveneague" is labeled (as opposed to the modern OS map label clearly marking a farm), there is no indication it was actually a hamlet in the late 1800's/early 1900's. I added both old maps to the article as citations linked to the NLS. As you suggested it, I moved the page to Treveneague, slightly altered the text, and removed the PROD. I reckon it may well fail NGEO, but it is referred to in some sources and ought to meet GNG. The new scope can include both North & South Treveneague, the farms, and I will put the archeological information in there as well. Dysklyver 16:12, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

OK, no problem. I just wasn't finding anything on "South Treveneague" specifically, except for the farm. Deor (talk) 16:23, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

Need some expert advice -- not a city, rite? ^{My name is}not^dave (talk/contribs) 15:52, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

• @My name is not dave: - Yes, St. Austell is a town - not a city. The only City in Cornwall is Truro. Truro only became a city recently, in the past Truro was just a town, and the "capital" of Cornwall was the "county town" of Bodmin, and before that, the county town was Launceston. But neither Bodmin or Launceston were cites. Dysklyver 16:02, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

• Reverted. ^{My name is}not^dave (talk/contribs) 16:03, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

Please compare your version[11] of Treveneague with mine[12]. I have kept one of your 6 sources as reliable and verifiable: everything else was either a duplicate of the one I kept, a dead source, or unreliable (and commercial) ones. The second half of your version had no encyclopedic information. That there is a farm is not important, that there are listed buildings has some importance, and gives some indication of why we have a separate article for this hamlet instead of merging it to the parish (which may still be the best solution).

Information for which you have no reliable information from a good source can better be left out of articles. Relying on webshops, personal blogs, ... is to be avoided in nearly all cases. If you have information which you would like to include anyway but for which you can't find a good source, put it on the talk page of the article and ask for help (there or at some relevant wikiproject). Fram (talk) 12:42, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Yes thanks. Especially on adding the bit about the listed buildings. I should point out that there is some confusion right now as to whether it really is a hamlet, hence the inclusion of multiple OS maps of different dates, I reckon your suggestion of merging it with St Hilary, Cornwall is the most sensible option. Dysklyver 13:01, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Hello, A Den Jentyl Ettien Avel Dysklyver. I've seen you editing recently and you seem knowledgeable about Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Would you please consider becoming a New Page Reviewer? Reviewing/patrolling a page doesn't take much time but it requires a good understanding of Wikipedia policies and guidelines; currently Wikipedia needs experienced users at this task. (After gaining the flag, patrolling is not mandatory. One can do it at their convenience). But kindly read the tutorial before making your decision. Thanks. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 18:08, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Insertcleverphrasehere, they already are NPR... Primefac (talk) 18:18, 21 November 2017 (UTC) (talk page stalker)

Ah woops, thought I checked the rights page, but must have miss-typed. I'll leave this here instead: — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 18:22, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

		The New Page Patroller's Barnstar
		Thanks for patrolling new pages. every little bit helps! — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 18:22, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

• Thanks, given the amount of negativity I have got from the mistakes I have made, it's nice to see my other work is appreciated :) Dysklyver 19:52, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Hi, the page has been in review for awhile under drafts. When can it be moved to the main space? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Karentalent (talk • contribs) 23:41, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

It will be moved to mainspace once it has been submitted to, and passed, the AfC process. This can take several weeks. While waiting you could improve the article, it has few reliable sources and limited indication of notability, Draft:Michael Zomick may not pass an AfC review in its current state. Dysklyver 23:46, 21 November 2017 (UTC)